GitHub also supports custom prefixes for the issues. However, here is another limitation: the prefix must be at least 3 letters, so we cannot, for example, autolink PR1234 issues. Already asked whether this restriction could be lifted.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > GitHub canonically uses "#NNN" to refer to its bugs or pull requests, and > also supports "GH-NNN". We'll want to switch to one of those schemes, so that > automatic linking works properly. So, in that case, PR1234 == legacy issue, > #1234 or GH-1234 == new issue. > > (See > https://help.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/autolinked-references-and-urls) > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 10:43 PM Johannes Doerfert via cfe-dev > <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 4/21/20 7:00 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: >> > On 04/21/2020 03:36 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev >> >> <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 to James's take >> >> >> >> I'd prefer simplicity of implementation over perfection here. >> >> >> >> If we end up with two different bug numbering systems, that's a problem >> >> that we will be paying for for many years. It's worth some investment now >> >> to avoid that problem. And it doesn't seem like it really requires much >> >> investment. >> >> >> >> Here's another path we could take: >> >> >> >> 1) Fork the llvm repository to a private "bugs" repository. Mirror the >> >> bugzilla issues there. Iterate until we're happy, as per James's proposal. >> >> 2) Sync the forked repository to the llvm repository, delete the llvm >> >> repository, rename "bugs" to "llvm", and make it public. >> >> >> >> Then we'll have the first N bugs in llvm-project/llvm being *exactly* the >> >> bugzilla bugs, and we'll have excised the existing github issues that we >> >> want to pretend never existed anyway. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think we've missed an important step in the planning here: we've not >> >> agreed on a set of goals for the transition. Here are mine: >> >> >> >> * We end up with one single issue tracking system containing all >> >> issues, both old and new, both open and closed. >> >> * All links and references to existing bugs still work. >> >> * We have a single bug numbering system covering all bugs, and old bugs >> >> retain their numbers. >> > Why are the bug numbers important? Could you help give some example use >> > cases that require having >> > a non-intersecting set of bug numbers for bugzilla bugs and github issues? >> >> >> While I have no experience in bugzilla or github tooling, the two step >> process described by Richard doesn't seem to be very complicated. >> >> >> As mentioned by others, we have commits and tests (and sometimes source >> files) that explicitly mention bug numbers. I do regularly look up bugs >> from a decade ago to determine if a test or some code still has >> relevance or not. If PR3214 can be one of two bugs, it does not only >> increase lookup time but also add confusion to everyone involved. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Johannes >> >> >> >> > -Tom >> > >> > >> >> It sounds like we don't all agree that the last point is important, but >> >> if we can achieve it without any significant additional cost, why not do >> >> so? >> >> >> >> Philip >> >> >> >> On 4/20/20 4:08 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: >> >>> In a previous discussion, one other suggestion had been to migrate >> >>> all the bugzilla bugs to a separate initially-private "bug archive" >> >>> repository in github. This has a few benefits: >> >>> 1. If the migration is messed up, the repo can be deleted, and the >> >>> process run again, until we get a result we like. >> >>> 2. The numbering can be fully-controlled. >> >>> Once the bugs are migrated to /some/ github repository, individual >> >>> issues can then be "moved" between repositories, and github will >> >>> redirect from the movefrom-repository's bug to the target repository's >> >>> bug. >> >>> >> >>> We could also just have llvm.org/PR### <http://llvm.org/PR#%23%23> >> >>> be the url only for legacy bugzilla issue numbers -- and have it use a >> >>> file listing the mappings of bugzilla id -> github id to generate the >> >>> redirects. (GCC just did this recently for svn revision number >> >>> redirections, https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232030.html). >> >>> >> >>> Then we could introduce a new naming scheme for github issue >> >>> shortlinks. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:50 PM Richard Smith via llvm-dev >> >>> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:31, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev >> >>> <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I wanted to continue discussing the plan to migrate from >> >>> Bugzilla to Github. >> >>> It was suggested that I start a new thread and give a >> >>> summary of the proposal >> >>> and what has changed since it was originally proposed in >> >>> October. >> >>> >> >>> == Here is the original proposal: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136162.html >> >>> >> >>> == What has changed: >> >>> >> >>> * You will be able to subscribe to notifications for a >> >>> specific issue >> >>> labels. We have a proof of concept notification system >> >>> using github actions >> >>> that will be used for this. >> >>> >> >>> * Emails will be sent to llvm-bugs when issues are opened >> >>> or closed. >> >>> >> >>> * We have the initial list of labels: >> >>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/labels >> >>> >> >>> == Remaining issue: >> >>> >> >>> * There is one remaining issue that I don't feel we have >> >>> consensus on, >> >>> and that is what to do with bugs in the existing bugzilla. >> >>> Here are some options >> >>> that we have discussed: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Switch to GitHub issues for new bugs only. Bugs filed >> >>> in bugzilla that are >> >>> still active will be updated there until they are closed. >> >>> This means that over >> >>> time the number of active bugs in bugzilla will slowly >> >>> decrease as bugs are closed >> >>> out. Then at some point in the future, all of the bugs >> >>> from bugzilla will be archived >> >>> into their own GitHub repository that is separate from the >> >>> llvm-project repo. >> >>> >> >>> 2. Same as 1, but also create a migration script that would >> >>> allow anyone to >> >>> manually migrate an active bug from bugzilla to a GitHub >> >>> issue in the llvm-project >> >>> repo. The intention with this script is that it would be >> >>> used to migrate high-traffic >> >>> or important bugs from bugzilla to GitHub to help increase >> >>> the visibility of the bug. >> >>> This would not be used for mass migration of all the bugs. >> >>> >> >>> 3. Do a mass bug migration from bugzilla to GitHub and >> >>> enable GitHub issues at the same time. >> >>> Closed or inactive bugs would be archived into their own >> >>> GitHub repository, and active bugs >> >>> would be migrated to the llvm-project repo. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Can we preserve the existing bug numbers if we migrate this >> >>> way? There are lots of references to "PRxxxxx" in checked in LLVM >> >>> artifacts and elsewhere in the world, as well as links to >> >>> llvm.org/PRxxxxx <http://llvm.org/PRxxxxx>, and if we can preserve all >> >>> the issue numbers this would ease the transition pain substantially. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The key difference between proposal 1,2 and 3, is when bugs >> >>> will be archived from bugzilla >> >>> to GitHub. Delaying the archiving of bugs (proposals 1 and >> >>> 2) means that we can migrate >> >>> to GitHub issues sooner (within 1-2 weeks), whereas trying >> >>> to archive bugs during the >> >>> transition (proposal 3) will delay the transition for a >> >>> while (likely several months) >> >>> while we evaluate the various solutions for moving bugs >> >>> from bugzilla to GitHub. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The original proposal was to do 1 or 2, however there were >> >>> some concerns raised on the list >> >>> that having 2 different places to search for bugs for some >> >>> period of time would >> >>> be very inconvenient. So, I would like to restart this >> >>> discussion and hopefully we can >> >>> come to some kind of conclusion about the best way forward. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Tom >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> >> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> >> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >>> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> >> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> cfe-dev mailing list >> >> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
